Memory Alpha:Featured article reviews
Reconfirmations without objections M-113 creature This one was originally featured in early 2005, and has seen several edits since then. I just copyedited it again today, some other contributors joined that attempt. While I'm not totally happy with small bits, like the name of the "Enterprise encounter" section or the wording of the remaining bgnote, I still think it's in a better shape than before. FA blurb has been created (Template:FA/M-113 creature), this diff shows the changes since first featuring the article. I'm not voting myself. -- Cid Highwind 13:19, December 5, 2011 (UTC) *I'm going to oppose for now, since as Cid mentioned it still needs some more work, that bgnote needs something done to it, and based on the amount of changes in the last few days we might want to go "full nomination" on this one. - 14:42, December 5, 2011 (UTC) *Changing to a tentative support after I removed the bgnote. It does look like another pair of eyes on this wouldn't be remiss though. - 21:49, December 7, 2011 (UTC) *'Support', looks up to specs to my (untrained) in-universe eye--Sennim 13:21, December 9, 2011 (UTC) Reconfirmations with objections The Way of the Warrior (episode) I think this is a good one to start with. The article was originally . In , there was an attempt to remove this article, but there was no consensus (2 for, 2 against). The comments of TrekFan and Defiant in that latter discussion suggest that there may be some spelling, grammar and format issues remaining. If these objections remain, they should be resolved if we want to reconfirm this article. (Other objections raised at the removal attempt, such as background citations and page numbers, were resolved) Of course, any other comments or suggestions regarding the article are welcome. :-) –Cleanse ( talk | ) 01:01, December 1, 2011 (UTC) *'Support' reconfirmation. - 01:26, December 1, 2011 (UTC) *'Support' reconfirmation. I fixed up the only grammar issues I could find.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 01:43, December 1, 2011 (UTC) *'Support'. --31dot 02:30, December 1, 2011 (UTC) *'Support'.--Sennim 05:58, December 2, 2011 (UTC) *'Supprt'. Tom 17:13, December 2, 2011 (UTC) :Comment: Please provide a link to the current main page summary (if it exists) - according to new FA policy, that one should be written during the nomination period, so it should exist for a renomination. Conditional oppose if that summary does not exist, or doesn't match the current article. -- Cid Highwind 21:46, December 4, 2011 (UTC) ::See Template:FA/The Way of the Warrior (episode). - 22:57, December 4, 2011 (UTC) ::I think the last paragraph in the blurb should be shortened to just "Realizing something must be done before the situation escalates out of control, Sisko notifies Starfleet Command and Lieutenant Commander Worf is dispatched to the station. Sisko gives Worf an assignment – find out what the Klingons are up to." since the blurb is a bit on the long side. - 01:33, December 6, 2011 (UTC) :Implemented that suggested change - the blurb is still a little too long for my taste (perhaps a sentence or two could be trimmed), but at least it shouldn't get longer than what it is now. -- Cid Highwind 13:23, December 9, 2011 (UTC) *'Oppose', after having read through the article again. For one, there's a huge discrepancy between the "Memorable Quotes" section of this article and MA:QUOTE: The guideline states that six would be a good upper limit - this episode is important and feature length but still, 20 quotes seems excessive. Some of them aren't memorable at all (quoting whole scenes or needing context to be understood), or should probably be placed somewhere else (Worf's Enterprise quote, for example, has nothing to do with the content of this episode), and the whole list apparently isn't sorted chronologically, either (the last-but-one quote is the final dialogue of the episode - not sure about the rest). Then, i think that parts of the background section would be more appropriate for the DS9 Season 4 article. Changes to the opening sequence, for example, weren't done for this episode specifically, but were a part of general "season 4 changes". The same is true for several of the "personnel changes" - which either belong on the season or even on the actor/character articles instead. -- Cid Highwind 13:53, December 9, 2011 (UTC) Telek R'Mor Another good article to start with would be Telek R'Mor, which was made an FA in Feb 2005 and whose FA removal discussion in Feb 2011 eventually lead to this page. Removal was suggested because the article was based on only one episode, there is no size or episode requirement, and that it had changed in the intervening 6 years. It survived removal with 3 opposed to the two supporting, and I think it still remains one of the best articles we have. - 01:26, December 1, 2011 (UTC) *'Support', as indicated above. - 01:40, December 1, 2011 (UTC) *'Support' reconfirmation. Under Background information, I added a couple of quotes from the actor about the role, courtesy of . I think that rounds the article out a bit.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 01:43, December 1, 2011 (UTC) *'Support'.--31dot 02:30, December 1, 2011 (UTC) * Just passing through and saw this... thought I'd still support it as I was pretty instrumental in transforming it into something out of nothing. --Alan 03:05, December 1, 2011 (UTC) *'Support'.--Sennim 05:58, December 2, 2011 (UTC) *'Support'. Tom 17:13, December 2, 2011 (UTC) :Comment: Please provide a link to the current main page summary (if it exists) - according to new FA policy, that one should be written during the nomination period, so it should exist for a renomination. Conditional oppose if that summary does not exist, or doesn't match the current article. -- Cid Highwind 21:46, December 4, 2011 (UTC) See Template:FA/Telek R'Mor. - 22:57, December 4, 2011 (UTC) *'Oppose': There seems to have been an error in copyediting. In the paragraph starting with "R'Mor communicated with the Romulan Senate," a possible "temporal implication" is mentioned although the fact that both ships are 20 years apart is mentioned only several paragraphs later - basically, the whole first half of that paragraph seems to be out of place. On the other hand, if the "temporal implication" refers to something else, that aspect needs to be clarified. Also, on a more general note, big parts of the "history" section are not, in fact, about the character, but are about events somehow involving the character. I admit that it is hard to make out an exact boundary between "acceptable" and "too much", but I think this article crosses that boundary. Another copyedit attempt should be made to trim the article content to be a little more focussed - and at the same time lose the micro-paragraphs of only 1-2 sentences. -- Cid Highwind 13:03, December 9, 2011 (UTC) :Comment: I agree with the point about removing the miniscule paragraphs. Some more clarification should be made. The bg info section currently states, "Dr. R'Mor was the first contact Voyager had with the Alpha Quadrant since becoming stranded in the Delta Quadrant." Is this established on-screen, in which case it can be moved to the in-universe portion of the article, or is it just the first time in the series run that we see contact being made between Voyager and the Alpha Quadrant? If the latter, I think some clarification should be made, regarding this. --Defiant 13:34, December 9, 2011 (UTC) ::Comment: I agree with Cid's points 1 (I totally overlooked the discrepancy-Janeway's nixing the proposal comes IIRC after the discovery of the time difference in act 4 of the episode) and 3 (micro-paragraphs). As for the overdoing the history bit, I do not see it that way, but this might be a matter of personal taste. For now I let my "support" stand pursuant the handling points 1 and 3--Sennim 13:52, December 9, 2011 (UTC) Landru I'm actually unsure about what is supposed to happen if I bring up an article for reconfirmation and oppose that myself, but here it is: I don't think that Landru should be an FA any longer. As can be seen in this diff, there haven't been any serious changes to this article between early 2005 and now. The article is a huge block of text without any internal structure like various sections (except for a small "see also" at the end); the initial sentence is too short, and not followed by a proper definition of "Landru" either. The prose of the following text is uninspired at best, nothing that really stands out as "good work". The background note at the end borders on the speculative. There could be some more proper background information if this is supposed to be a "really great" article. -- Cid Highwind 18:38, December 5, 2011 (UTC) *'Remove' the FA status. I agree with Cid.--31dot 00:54, December 6, 2011 (UTC) :We try to fix it. If we can't, it gets removed. - 01:15, December 6, 2011 (UTC) *'Oppose' reconfirmation/remove FA status. Pretty much as Cid says, the article is a big bland block of text. As for background, I flipped through a few reference books but couldn't find anything to add. The existing bg note should be removed, as there's no evidence the Borg were influenced at all by Landru. That being the case, it's just a random "some fans" opinion.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 07:33, December 6, 2011 (UTC) *I should note that this system doesn't replace the FA removal one, just that this "forces" a reconfirmation. The idea is any minor changes needed after two years can be done (or better yet already were), but articles which have gone this far downhill (or in this case have been left behind) would hopefully be removed before they get here. That said, I'm opposing reconfirming this one, for the reasons already stated. We've most likely going to be too busy with the backlog to save articles that need this much work. - 08:34, December 6, 2011 (UTC) :Forgot this: Template:FA/Landru. - 08:35, December 6, 2011 (UTC) *'Oppose' reconfirmation for the reasons already stated. The article needs a larger overhaul than mere fixing minor shortcomings--Sennim 13:03, December 9, 2011 (UTC) ::Comment: The parallel I've made between Landru and the Borg is indeed a personal observation. Similar observations have been made in the bg info section for Telek R'Mor, though (unlike here) those haven't been opposed, so we should decide whether to accept such observations and then act on that decision. --Defiant 13:52, December 9, 2011 (UTC) The difference is that one is an extrapolation based purely on canon facts, and the other is at least baseless speculation, and even wrong the way it is currently phrased. Landru never was a "precursor" to the Borg. -- Cid Highwind 14:07, December 9, 2011 (UTC) ::They're both speculative, but I can sort of see what you mean by your point about taking into accent the basis of the speculation. As for your point about it being "even wrong," I disagree with this. If you look here, you'll see that dictionary.com's first definition of precursor is "a person or thing that precedes, as in a job, a method, etc.; predecessor." Both in the canon of the Star Trek franchise and in its production history, Landru was (at least, in this context) indeed a precursor of the Borg. Though I don't accept "wrong," I'd probably accept "misleading." Regardless, we should check whether there's basis for this observation having been made elsewhere (e.g. by production staff), then decide on this particular case. --Defiant 14:20, December 9, 2011 (UTC) ::One more thing I'd like to point out is that the Borg/Landru similarity is not "baseless." Just like the speculations on the R'Mor page, the parallel is based on observations of the canon evidence. But I understand if there's some bias towards accepting observation of facts, over behavioral observations. --Defiant 14:26, December 9, 2011 (UTC) But "precursor" (or "predecessor") implies some sort of deliberate evolution from one to the other. Indeed, if some production info can be found that basically states "we remembered that TOS guy Landru, and we wanted to create something along the same lines and got the Borg", then we can call Landru a precursor. If that production info does not exist (meaning that we must assume that no such idea was the reason for creating the Borg), it would be baseless speculation and wrong to imply as much. -- Cid Highwind 14:28, December 9, 2011 (UTC) ::I think the "wrong" part is imposing an implication on the word that is not stipulated in its dictionary definition, though – as I attempted to imply – I'll accept that others may make the same mistake, if it's a common error. A rewording, at the very least, should be made, IMO (obviously, deletion if no source can be cited). --Defiant 14:41, December 9, 2011 (UTC) If you want to rephrase that bit, please go ahead. In the end, whether this is outright wrong or "just" misleading and uncited doesn't matter much. It's still something worthy of "valid opposition" as far as its FA reconfirmation here is concerned - and on top of that, it's not the only thing that this reconfirmation is being opposed for. So, again: please feel free to enhance this article by adding whatever changes you deem appropriate. I'll let everyone know if that changes my opinion here. -- Cid Highwind 15:14, December 9, 2011 (UTC)